Quantcast
Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Shadow1980 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.

I didn't say the distribution was correct, especially that 2 plus X proportion should go away. And you have glossed or not realized the difference when there's no winner takes all anymore: suddenly all states become battleground states, as there's no safe seat anymore. All those third parties which couldn't hope for anything? They now not only have a shot, they need to be taken into account and coalitions need to be formed with them to get enough votes together, resulting in more nuanced and less black-and-white laws and rulings.


The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly.

Well, they are not always called president. Maybe try other titles, like prime minister, for instance. Presidents indeed tend to be more of a ceremonial office, hence why more and more they don't even get elected by the people anymore, but appointed.

I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes.

I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote.

@italic: That's how it goes mostly outside of the US, though they might use a highest-average or largest remainder calculation method to calculate the seats for each party. I certainly wouldn't have advocated for EC and against WTA without a proportional representation of the votes.

Speaking of Gerrymandering, that should also get abolished while we're at it. What good can come from constantly redrawing the lines, after all? That's almost literally moving the goalposts.



Around the Network
gamingsoul said:

Funny how Norway has become the point of mesure for everyone, Norway happens to be one of the riches countries in the world, it’s also very small and homogenous, but yeah if they get socialism right anybody can.

i am not even sure if Norway qualifies as a socialist country

I'm pretty sure I said Nordic Model, not Norway Model.  You really are showing your ignorance on the subject here.  Nordic references Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.  That's 30 million people. Guess who else is one of the richest countries in the world?  The US.  So I don't understand why you are using that point as a negative.

And as much as this may surprise you, the US is already very much a Democratic Socialist country.

Here is just a sample of our socialist programs and ideals.

1. Military.
2. Roads/bridges.
3. Schools.
4. Libraries.
5. Police.
6. Fire Department.
7. Postal service.
8. Pell Grants and student loans.
9. Garbage collection/Landfills.
10. Electricity/Water/Sewer
11. Environmental protection.
12. Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare.
13. Museums.
14. Criminal justice system.
15. Public parks.
16 The government itself.
17. SNAP.
18. Hydroelectric systems/dams.
19. Army Corps of Engineers.
20. Zoos.
21. Public transportation.
22. Amtrak.
23. City beaches.
24. Unemployment insurance.
25. WIC.
26. PBS/NPR.
27. Snow removal/road salting.
28. CDC.
29. FEMA.
30. Public Defenders.
31. OSHA.
32. State and National Parks/Monuments.
33. National Weather Service.

And it really does go on and on. But let us know how every single one of those is bad....because socialism or something.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Shadow1980 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.


The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly.

I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes.

I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote.

Go ahead and abolish the EC. No more EC means Democratic Presidency going forward period. All it will take is 8 years of further left Democratic Presidency, which wouldn't be out of the question, with another 4-8 following that, and you can basically guarantee the red states that aren't getting their way because they have no chance, will break off. What you likely end up with is a new Country being formed right down the center of America. A Country who is a roadblock between the east and west, has most of the food, and most of the guns. It won't take long after this for things to get worked out and the EC put back in place, in order for the country to become one again. That depends on how much the coastal states are willing to compromise, because after pushing the central red states to go to all this trouble, they aren't just going to come back together without turning back the clock to where the country stood when the EC was last in place.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Go ahead and abolish the EC. No more EC means Democratic Presidency going forward period. All it will take is 8 years of further left Democratic Presidency, which wouldn't be out of the question, with another 4-8 following that, and you can basically guarantee the red states that aren't getting their way because they have no chance, will break off. What you likely end up with is a new Country being formed right down the center of America. A Country who is a roadblock between the east and west, has most of the food, and most of the guns. It won't take long after this for things to get worked out and the EC put back in place, in order for the country to become one again. That depends on how much the coastal states are willing to compromise, because after pushing the central red states to go to all this trouble, they aren't just going to come back together without turning back the clock to where the country stood when the EC was last in place.

I like how your whole argument against the electoral college is that if red states don't have an advantage, then red states are going to basically throw a tantrum.  

A few problems:

-There aren't very many super red or blue states that would be leaping all over secession.  Most states are purple.  

-The US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population.

-Just because people have guns, doesn't mean they are going to be using them. 

-You're ignoring how other countries would react.  How do you think Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, Japan, etc would react?  Whose side do you think they'd be on, even if every part of your hypothetical happened?  

-Blue states tend to fund red states.  If the states were to separate, the red states would be in major trouble.  Blue states would start doing better economically.  



Bofferbrauer2 said:

I didn't say the distribution was correct, especially that 2 plus X proportion should go away. And you have glossed or not realized the difference when there's no winner takes all anymore: suddenly all states become battleground states, as there's no safe seat anymore. All those third parties which couldn't hope for anything? They now not only have a shot, they need to be taken into account and coalitions need to be formed with them to get enough votes together, resulting in more nuanced and less black-and-white laws and rulings.

Without WTA, more people's votes do indeed count, especially if we award votes proportionally. Democratic voters in Texas and Republican voters in California would matter for a change. Even third parties stand a better chance of picking up at lest a few EC votes.

However, we do run the risk of other complications without WTA, something I forgot all about in my previous post. We run the risk of a scenario where no candidate gets a majority of EC votes being a regular thing, and that means that elections would regularly be determined by the House of Representatives instead of by the people. If EC votes were awarded proportionally, Hillary likely would not have gotten the 270 votes needed to win, though she would have beaten Trump in total number of votes. Unless there was some rule in place to where the winner of the national popular vote has the EC votes rounded up in their favor (say, a result of 65% of the California popular vote would get them 36 EC votes, rounded up from 35.75), they may not win a majority of the EC votes needed. Even with rounding, it's possible that a race with a major third-party candidate could throw the election to the House, and even when they get well below 5% of the popular vote they could still pick up enough EC votes in larger states to result in neither major-party candidate getting a majority.

If every state used the Nebraska—Maine method, that still wouldn't solve it. Trump still would have had the most EC votes in 2016, but not a majority. He won 230 House districts and 30 states, putting him 10 EC votes short of the 270 needed to win. And that's with the fact that this system would negate the possibility of third parties picking up any EC votes.

In gaming terms, there's no way to "re-balance" the EC without introducing new balancing issues. While awarding EC votes proportionally would be preferable, without some sort of rounding scheme in place we could see many elections go the House, whereas only one election has been decided that way in all of American history.

It would be better to simply replace the EC with a national popular vote. It's simple and negates the need for arcane systems of rounding or taking geography into account. If we want third parties to actually matter beyond being simple spoilers and/or we want the president to be determined by an actual majority instead of a plurality, perhaps some sort of runoff system (either ranked-choice voting or a two-round system) could be implemented.

Well, they are not always called president. Maybe try other titles, like prime minister, for instance. Presidents indeed tend to be more of a ceremonial office, hence why more and more they don't even get elected by the people anymore, but appointed.

Point being, the U.S. is the only nation with an executive president—meaning a president that actually exercises power, as in any other full or semi-presidential system—that is not directly elected by a popular vote. If the U.S. presidency was a ceremonial office, I honestly wouldn't care how they're elected since they have no real power. But this is a presidential republic, not a parliamentary republic, so the people need to be the ones to determine who the head of state is, preferably directly.

@italic: That's how it goes mostly outside of the US, though they might use a highest-average or largest remainder calculation method to calculate the seats for each party. I certainly wouldn't have advocated for EC and against WTA without a proportional representation of the votes.

Well, you thought of the rounding issue, too, I see. Though even with a proper rounding system in place, we still run a much greater risk of having elections being determined by the House.

Speaking of Gerrymandering, that should also get abolished while we're at it. What good can come from constantly redrawing the lines, after all? That's almost literally moving the goalposts.

On that we are in agreement.

While taking away the redistricting process from the hands of people with partisan agendas and putting it in the hands of a body that's the least likely to get into any shenanigans would be a major improvement, I think House elections should be determined by proportional representation. I tend to prefer the single-transferable vote method, which is the one favored by FairVote.org. Essentially, it gets rid of single-member districts in favor of multi-member districts. Such systems are almost impossible to effectively gerrymander.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

Nope, I actually do not dislike Trump at all.  I do not have to like or dislike someone to have an opinion of them.  As I have stated, some of the stuff Trump tackles are legit issues, it's the fact that he is incompetent as the person to tackle those issues is the problem. 

Not sure why you believe I am mad at Trump just because I believe he is an idiot.  Why should I feel sorry for him when he plays the game just like any player.  Hell, I wouldn't even care if he goes another 4 years.  If he is this glorious leader you believe, I would definitely want you to get the full experience.  Trump has been the most entertaining President in a long time.  People who probably never followed politics know about positions and the people in those positions due to Trump more than any other President.  

The problem with you is that you always try to make even the most bone headed thing Trump do or say into something positive which is fun just seeing you work your magic.  I haven't notice any analogies from you lately but I am sure you will throw out a few once you get back up to speed.

Machiavellian said:

Its the same situation with your example of "Grab her by the _____".  The media did not claim anything because anyone who was interested heard exactly what Trump stated since they all but Fox News played the whole tape.  Yes, we did here him say "They let you grab them"  We also heard how he just goes in and kiss them without consent stating they let you do it because you are rich.  The complete context was a man who decided to brag about taking advantage of women because he was rich.  Just think about it, sleeping with some Porn star while your wife has just delivered your child.  Hell, Trump has cheated on each one of his wives, that is pretty much what he does.


The thing is you are trying to make Trump out to be this moral person which he is definitely not.  You only have to do moderate research on Trump to see that he has always been a grifter.  Does that mean he would be a bad President, actually no it doesn't.  None of the moral stuff Trump has done would actually be a knock on him as a leader.  The knock on Trump as a leader is that he is an Idiot.  You can look throughout his pass and see that he has always been this big BS artist who has lied about his wealth and his business prowers but in reality he is just a con man and not a very good one.  

Well based on your, 'showing people who they are' logic, If you don't dislike Trump, then are you condoning the things he's said and done, like the things stated above? Talking about woman like that, cheating on his wives, conning and swindling people, etc?

These things don't necessarily make him a bad leader as you mentioned, so does it make him a bad unlikable person, or do you find that acceptable and attractive? If his immorality doesn't make you mad or upset, I don't know why you would bring them up as points against him, if you're really being honest in your rebuttals.

Your logic is escaping me.  No, Trump morality does not make me mad or upset because I am not his wife, his friend or care about him in any of those ways.  Why would I waste the emotion for someone I care nothing about.  To feel a strong emotion like getting mad he would need to be close and personal to me.  I do not have to be mad or upset to not agree with what someone does or live their life.  What you are saying has absolutely no bearing on me.  I make points about Trump character traits because those traits have a direct bearing on him doing his Job as President. 

Cheating on his wife makes him a total ass but does that mean he cannot make good policy no.  Telling lies every chance he gets is something totally different.  In a job where you deal with people and trust is a important commodity, being untrustworthy is a huge ding.

Maybe you get emotional over these things but you probably shouldn't project them on me.

At the end of the day, I still have no clue what point you are trying to make.



Azuren said:
RolStoppable said:

Depends on the posting history as well as the content of the post in question. People choosing ironic usernames is a thing.

Again, good luck with that. 

Lol, I like you Azuren.  Nothing warms my heart when I see someone go to great lengths to find something to be prejudice to someone else.  First it's a username, next you will be seeking my nationality, sex, gender, marital status who knows what else. To use your phrase, Good luck with that.



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Go ahead and abolish the EC. No more EC means Democratic Presidency going forward period. All it will take is 8 years of further left Democratic Presidency, which wouldn't be out of the question, with another 4-8 following that, and you can basically guarantee the red states that aren't getting their way because they have no chance, will break off. What you likely end up with is a new Country being formed right down the center of America. A Country who is a roadblock between the east and west, has most of the food, and most of the guns. It won't take long after this for things to get worked out and the EC put back in place, in order for the country to become one again. That depends on how much the coastal states are willing to compromise, because after pushing the central red states to go to all this trouble, they aren't just going to come back together without turning back the clock to where the country stood when the EC was last in place.

I like how your whole argument against the electoral college is that if red states don't have an advantage, then red states are going to basically throw a tantrum.  

A few problems:

-There aren't very many super red or blue states that would be leaping all over secession.  Most states are purple.  

-The US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population.

-Just because people have guns, doesn't mean they are going to be using them. 

-You're ignoring how other countries would react.  How do you think Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, Japan, etc would react?  Whose side do you think they'd be on, even if every part of your hypothetical happened?  

-Blue states tend to fund red states.  If the states were to separate, the red states would be in major trouble.  Blue states would start doing better economically.  

Red states never having a chance at electing a Conservative President again equates to red states not having an advantage to you?

-If you look at America in general the central portion of the country is red, and no, that does not mean they all would immediately leave and join together, but it would be a smart move to do it together and pre planned for many reasons. Even if it took a few larger more impactful states to do so, others would follow quickly in this situation.

-Owned by the red states? You think if a bunch of states separated that they would give all of their military weaponry to Washington? The people in those states paid it's fair share for it's portion, just like the roads.

-Who said they planned on using them other than to defend themselves and their newly found Country?

-Well for any countries who rely on food sourced from America, it would matter quite a bit, and when the prices went way up, they wouldn't be happy, and would have the coastal country to blame as well. Otherwise what are they going to do, tell those central red states they can't leave and to just keeping fighting an unwinnable political battle? Sounds kinda like Brexit, no?

-When the red states have banded together and because they control a tonne of the local food supply, they decide to up their prices 10X let's say. The coastal country now has to pay that until they can bring in enough outside food, if they can. When those outside sources find out the food in coastal America now costs 10X as much, they will jack up their prices too, so those coastal states will now be paying 5X or more for what poorer, lower quality food they can get their hands on. How well is your economy going to do if your people are hungry, unhealthy, or fed and healthy but much poorer because of it? Not to mention things like if the east and west can truly be geographically split, then the central country can cause a major headache in terms of travel for the coastal country in many ways.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

Something I would point out is that interests are rarely divided into big states and small states, but urban vs rural.  

The issue with the electoral college as it is, is that it causes rural votes in blue states to not get counted, and it causes urban votes in red states to not get counted.  Having the electoral college gone would lead Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in say Alabama would actually matter.  



EricHiggin said:

Red states never having a chance at electing a Conservative President again equates to red states not having an advantage to you?

Having your vote count more would equate to having an advantage.  

EricHiggin said:

-If you look at America in general the central portion of the country is red, and no, that does not mean they all would immediately leave and join together, but it would be a smart move to do it together and pre planned for many reasons. Even if it took a few larger more impactful states to do so, others would follow quickly in this situation.

That's conjecture.  

EricHiggin said:

-Owned by the red states? You think if a bunch of states separated that they would give all of their military weaponry to Washington? The people in those states paid it's fair share for it's portion, just like the roads.

I have no idea what you're responding to.  Never said anything about "giving all of their military weaponry to Washington".

EricHiggin said:

-Who said they planned on using them other than to defend themselves and their newly found Country?

If red states didn't use them, they'd be at a massive disadvantage.  

EricHiggin said:

-Well for any countries who rely on food sourced from America, it would matter quite a bit, and when the prices went way up, they wouldn't be happy, and would have the coastal country to blame as well. Otherwise what are they going to do, tell those central red states they can't leave and to just keeping fighting an unwinnable political battle? Sounds kinda like Brexit, no?

-When the red states have banded together and because they control a tonne of the local food supply, they decide to up their prices 10X let's say. The coastal country now has to pay that until they can bring in enough outside food, if they can. When those outside sources find out the food in coastal America now costs 10X as much, they will jack up their prices too, so those coastal states will now be paying 5X or more for what poorer, lower quality food they can get their hands on. How well is your economy going to do if your people are hungry, unhealthy, or fed and healthy but much poorer because of it? Not to mention things like if the east and west can truly be geographically split, then the central country can cause a major headache in terms of travel for the coastal country in many ways.

The problem is, red states don't have this giant food advantage that you think they do.   

California alone makes 11% of the US food production.  Other likely blue states like Minnesota and Illinois make up another 10%.  Those 3 states make up more food production than the top 3 red states.  Red states all together do have an advantage, but it's not as big as you think.  

And this is all ignoring that a huge portion of food gets imported from other countries.  In fact most fruit gets imported from other countries. Which set of states do you think they'd trade with? 

If you add in import, the red state's food advantage disappears.  

And again, this doesn't matter.   Most states are purple.  

Even Texas:

What do you think the 40% of Democratic voters would do?  

It just isn't possible for a red vs blue state conflict, because red and blue states don't exactly exist.